Propganda and Prophecy

Join the Romance of the Three Kingdoms discussion with our resident Scholars. Topics relating to the novel and history are both welcome. Don't forget to check the Forum Rules before posting.
Kongming’s Archives: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Three Kingdoms Officer Biographies
Three Kingdoms Officer Encyclopedia
Scholars of Shen Zhou Search Tool

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:54 pm

Why? There were countless people who were given special autonomy not unlike Shis. Guan Yu, Zhong Yao, Zhou Yu and Zhang Lu comes to mind. Yet none of them frequently sent tribute to their lords barring the usual supplies and men of course. Furthermore, very few Warlords submit to an unofficial regime without putting up a fight. Shi personally did so and even sent a hostage.

If one omits the fact that Progenitor of said bloodline contributed heavily to said regime.


Zhang Lu? The others were subordinates, I have seen no history record that puts Shi Xie as a officer of Wu. Vassal state maybe.

Your overselling his contribution and frankly that doesn't matter for Wu. Legitimacy of taking Shi land does, Shi's being bad apples helps.

This then goes back to my argument ; Why cant Cao be practical and benevolent?

And why not? Yes, I agreed? Tell me something new, I literally said Cao did f up and was wrong and played a role in Ang death. But Zhang Xiu was the main instigator behind Ang death due to his revolt.


If your doing something that benefits yourself, how is it an act of kindness?

I think we are going to have to agree or disagree on who is the most to blame for Cao Ang's death.

No? Copy paste once again: Even if they did construct, Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and others will probably dismiss it due to the aforementioned reasons.


Again, your making a big assumption that, miraculously, fits into your view point :wink: I'm a little confused if your wanting me to copy paste something

Isnt the words that you omitted the Du Qiong link?

Yes, and I did thank you. Also, you did omit significant information by not mentioning Xian Di abdication within the source. Which was vital.

Dont put words in my mouth. All I did was explain why posting partial sources and omitting words within posted sources are wrong and unacceptable. I said the actions, not you was unacceptable. I even elaborated why its unacceptable. Which it is.

I do?


Yep. I mean not the opening set up line and some of the wording of the prophecy is different but the general meaning and thrust is correct

Unless one thinks that Qiao Zhou foretold the death of a dynasty when he was young man pre the dynasty actually existing let alone the memorial it was undermining, I'm not sure how that was vital?

I took the logical reading of your words. I also explained to you that your attitude is for another setting like an academic paper. I'm sorry that someone typing up a lengthy passage in his own free time, obeying the conventions in which he is writing it, isn't enough for you but it is not unacceptable in the context of such forums. If it was an academic paper then yes, it would be unacceptable but your on a forum.

It would help to know if I should limit any future source quoting from works (ala sgz and ZZTJ) I can link you too.

No. In present day terms, the Brits have Brexit and Muricans have Donald. If one say Democracy is falling and overreact, it would be much more understandable than say if the UK and US were not dealing with any major problems and were winning battles or " trade deals" etc etc. Now mutiply that factor multiple times and put it in Ancient times, particularly Han Era China where loyalty to Dynasty is a literal matter of life and death.

The political reality where the East Han officially ends after 200 years and the political reality that the Shu Han was in serious decline and facing internal turmoil in Eunuch domination plus external pressure in the form of wasting resources in comparison to where the East Han was just barely existing and Liu Bei was on a winning streak in terms of battles.


I'm a little confused by your first paragraph. As far as I understand it, I'm pretty sure what you call unacceptable some of that is the stance of several members of the offical opposition in UK and the third party.

So if one is to attack the very legitimacy of the dynasty, do it when it is weak is acceptable but can't make an honest prophecy if it is having a good spell?

Anicent people were suspicious. Ancient Chinese no different. Sensitive names can be a justification for powerless gentry to point to when they feel helpless thus drawing support for Qiao Zhou words.

Liu Bei? Prententious weed and all that jazz.


Well Shu falling sure helped it's popularity as a prophecy :wink: The gentry seem quite happy to have blamed Huang Hao, Jiang Wei and co for the problems

I have never seen that term used for "idiot" or variants of. That Liu Bei felt he was uppity and nuisance one can draw from the insult, not sure how one can take it as idiot

And both times going against Liu Bei with the second being more personal.

Thanks. I withdraw my previous comment that Zhang Yu was telling everyone that Han will fall. But anyway, apparently, Zhang Yu felt that it was sensitive enough to ensure privacy while someone felt it serious enough to inform Liu Bei. 8-)

Yeah thanks by the way.

Zhuge Liang was no inform reasons. Chen Shou does not appraise Zhang.


Compared to Qiao Zhou's highly personal attack?

Indeed.

No problem

Yes, all Zhuge Liang got was the insult rather then Liu Bei daring to go with the offical reason. Text of SGZ
After that, Wei was established as the new dynasty, and the First Ruler died, all according to Zhang Yu's predictions.


Right.

The reason given for Kong Rong death is slandee though. Source on your claims?

Liu Bei reign was longer than Sun Quan and only slightly shorter than Cao.


Rafe's encyclopaedia
Kong Rong was respected and popular at all levels of the court and among leaders of the empire, so for a long time, Cao Cao was obliged to tolerate him, but eventually Kong Rong went too far, arguing that Cao Cao should leave the capital and be sent to his fief Though cast in terms of precedent, this was a direct attack upon Cao Cao's structure of power, and Cao Cao's follower Chi Lu now accused Kong Rong of breaking the law and had him dismissed from the ministry. Cao Cao wrote to warn Kong Rong that he was pressing too hard. His letter is long and carefully composed, a mark of his concern, but Kong Rong replied with defiant self-righteousness. He returned to office as a Palace Counsellor, and gathered an increasing following of clients.


Liu Bei was a ruler a decade, Sun Quan was emperor (ignoring his being effective power) for double that time

Nothing? Slightly excessive I guess. But obviously not as bad as Chen Lin claims.


Fair enough

According to your source. Because Liu Bei has already charged him. What history are you reading? The source that you link states that Zhang Yu words were misspoken and he gave bad advice for HanZhong.

Guan Zhong begs to differ. Liu Bei receiving surrender and rewarding properly is in line with Confucian example of kindness.


My source the sgz and my other source the main professor of 3kingdoms? Not sure quite what your going for with "Liu Bei has already charged him." The sources that I mention both go for grudge

Do you not think Guan Zhong means to act kindly, to go beyond his rulers self interest but to be generous and not just "do the basics and don't suicide your kingdom by turning everyone against you"?
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Han » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:36 pm

Zhang Lu? The others were subordinates, I have seen no history record that puts Shi Xie as a officer of Wu. Vassal state maybe.

Your overselling his contribution and frankly that doesn't matter for Wu. Legitimacy of taking Shi land does, Shi's being bad apples helps.


Zhang Lu was a vassal of Liu Yan. Shi Xie was under Sun Wu biography in SanGuoZhi.

His SanGuoZhi seems to indicate that he was considered Sun Quan surbodinate, albeit one with unique autonomy:

In the fifteenth year of Jian An [AD 210], Sun Quan dispatched Bu Zhi to become the Inspector of Jiao Zhi. Upon Bu Zhi’s arrival, Shi Xie led his brothers to received and recognize [the court of Sun Quan]. Based upon suspicions of Wu Ju’s loyalty, Bu Zhi executed him.B Sun Quan further appointed Shi Xie to become General of the Left (zuo jiang jun).

In the final years of the Jian An reign, Shi Xie sent his son – Shi Xin – as hostage [to Sun Quan]. Shi Xin was appointed as Grand Administrator of Wu Chang commandery. The various sons of Shi Xie and Shi Yi were all appointed with the rank of General of the Gentlemen of the Household (zhong lang jiang).

Shi Xie also persuaded Yong Kai from Yi zhou and others to bring the commandery citizens over to the East (Sun Quan). Sun Quan greatly appreciative, appointed Shi Xie as General of the Guards (wei jiang jun) and Marquis of Long Bian (Shi Xie’s capital in Jiao Zhi which is situated near present-day Hanoi, Vietnam); furthermore, his younger brother Shi Yi was appointed as Lieutenant-General (pian jiang jun) and Marquis of a Chief District.

Shi Xie regularly sent an envoy to Sun Quan with tributes consisting of: incense and fine cloth (kau silk or pinikon); pearls and great cowry shells; ornamental colored glass “liu li” [imported from the Roman Empire: HHS 88/78, pp.2919; also SGZ 30/Book of Wei, Pei Song Zhi quoting Wei Lue, pp.861]; kingfisher feathers; tortoise shells; rhinoceros horn and elephant ivory; exotic fruits such as bananas, coconuts, long an “dragon-eyes fruit” and lichees. There was never a time that [the tributes] did not arrive. At the same time, Shi Yi also sent tributes of horses that commonly consisted of several hundreds of steeds at a time. In response, Sun Quan bestows substantial favors on them.

Shi Xie had been in office [of Jiao Zhi] for over forty years, that is, until his death at the age of ninety sui C in the fifth year of Huang Wu [AD 226].

Sun Quan thought that the Jiao Zhi region was too distant so he split the province: He Pu, and the territories north of it [the Yu Lin, Cang Wu, and Nan Hai commanderies], was formed into one province and renamed Guang zhou with Lu Dai as the Inspector (replacing Bu Zhi); Jiao Zhi, and the territories south of it [Jiu Zhen and Ri Nan commanderies], was formed into one province but kept the name Jiao zhou with Dai Liang as the Inspector.

In addition, Sun Quan dispatched Chen Shi to replace [the deceased] Shi Xie as Grand Administrator of Jiao Zhi. Lu Dai stayed behind at Nan Hai, while on the other hand, Dai Liang and Chen Shi advanced together to He Pu.

In comparison to the others I mentioned? Sure. Legitimacy of taking Shi land matters for Wu and they can do so by simply dissing Shi descendants and not going after Shi Xie himself who was highly respected in the far South.

If your doing something that benefits yourself, how is it an act of kindness?

I think we are going to have to agree or disagree on who is the most to blame for Cao Ang's death.


If you are forgiving someone who played a vital role in your son death, why is it not considered kindness? Why cant a person be practical and kind?

Sure.

Again, your making a big assumption that, miraculously, fits into your view point :wink: I'm a little confused if your wanting me to copy paste something


An assumption that uses logic? Chen, Pei and Sima generally question sources that are not backed up by evidence and official documents. So if one slanders Liu Bei which will contradict the other sources, they will likely dismiss it which is why no record of Liu Bei being dissed currently exist. No, Im just reiterating my stand. It will however be nice if you can summarise your stand too.

Yep. I mean not the opening set up line and some of the wording of the prophecy is different but the general meaning and thrust is correct

Unless one thinks that Qiao Zhou foretold the death of a dynasty when he was young man pre the dynasty actually existing let alone the memorial it was undermining, I'm not sure how that was vital?

I took the logical reading of your words. I also explained to you that your attitude is for another setting like an academic paper. I'm sorry that someone typing up a lengthy passage in his own free time, obeying the conventions in which he is writing it, isn't enough for you but it is not unacceptable in the context of such forums. If it was an academic paper then yes, it would be unacceptable but your on a forum.

It would help to know if I should limit any future source quoting from works (ala sgz and ZZTJ) I can link you too.


Of course, thats understandable.

The reason for Qiao Zhou prophecy was the names of the last few East Han and Shu Han Emperors names with Liu Bian demotionXian Di abdication as the main reasoning. This is in comparison to Zhang Yu whos prediction was made while the East Han was on its last legs and Liu Bei was on a winning streak. Dissing the Han will not exist while the Han Emperor was a hostage will not sit well with Han loyalists. Dissing Liu Bei while he was rising would not sit well with Liu Bei.

Yes, except posting partial sources while omitting vital information will not help you get your point across properly and will not help me properly debate it?

Nah its ok. As long as the source is reliable I dont care if its past or present, Eastern or Western etc etc.

I'm a little confused by your first paragraph. As far as I understand it, I'm pretty sure what you call unacceptable some of that is the stance of several members of the offical opposition in UK and the third party.

So if one is to attack the very legitimacy of the dynasty, do it when it is weak is acceptable but can't make an honest prophecy if it is having a good spell?


Yes. And its because the US and UK seems to be heavily declining which helps the democracy is failing stance. If the US or UK was on the rise, few will believe that democracy is failing. Btw Im just using the US and UK as an example because they are the major Western countries that seems to be declining.

Attacking the legitimacy of a Dynasty while its weak will make more logical sense in comparison to attacking the legitimacy of a Dynasty while its declining. Honest how? Its honest now because the 3K era is over and we know that Zhang Yu advised became true. But back then, the East Han barely existing and now this guy comes along and say the Han will end. Meanwhile, Liu Bei was on a winning streak and yet this same dude says he will fail. How does it make sense? How will the Han loyalist accept this? How would Liu Bei be ok with this?

Well Shu falling sure helped it's popularity as a prophecy :wink: The gentry seem quite happy to have blamed Huang Hao, Jiang Wei and co for the problems

I have never seen that term used for "idiot" or variants of. That Liu Bei felt he was uppity and nuisance one can draw from the insult, not sure how one can take it as idiot


Exactly.

Fair enough. But Zhang Yu comes of as illogical because Liu Bei was winning and yet Zhang said that he will fail.


Compared to Qiao Zhou's highly personal attack?

Indeed.

No problem

Yes, all Zhuge Liang got was the insult rather then Liu Bei daring to go with the offical reason. Text of SGZ


Qiao argument was Shu Han will fall because of names with Liu Bian demotion and Xian Di abdication as support. Zhang Yu argument was Han Dynasty would fall and Liu Bei will fail even if he gains territory hurr durr. The latter seems more nonsensical than the former and more offensive because zero reason or logic to support it.

" he put him in jail on the charge of giving bad advice during the campaign of Hanzhong, and was about to kill him. Zhuge Liang petitioned to know of the specific crime. The First Ruler said, "Pretentious weeds growing outside one's door must be eliminated." "

Liu Bei already charged him with bad advice for HanZhong being the main reason which is probably why he did not give additional reasons. Fair enough. We now know that his predictions come true. But back then it probably seem inauspicious and borderline nonesensical because no logic( Bei will gain territory but lose) and reason.

Rafe's encyclopaedia
Kong Rong was respected and popular at all levels of the court and among leaders of the empire, so for a long time, Cao Cao was obliged to tolerate him, but eventually Kong Rong went too far, arguing that Cao Cao should leave the capital and be sent to his fief Though cast in terms of precedent, this was a direct attack upon Cao Cao's structure of power, and Cao Cao's follower Chi Lu now accused Kong Rong of breaking the law and had him dismissed from the ministry. Cao Cao wrote to warn Kong Rong that he was pressing too hard. His letter is long and carefully composed, a mark of his concern, but Kong Rong replied with defiant self-righteousness. He returned to office as a Palace Counsellor, and gathered an increasing following of clients.


Liu Bei was a ruler a decade, Sun Quan was emperor (ignoring his being effective power) for double that time


Thanks for your source. But Kong Rong offical charges were due to slander though.

Fair enough. But Bei during his warlord days usually had a personal militia and later high autonomy with personal surbodinates. Furthermore, just two still isnt really a habit.

My source the sgz and my other source the main professor of 3kingdoms? Not sure quite what your going for with "Liu Bei has already charged him." The sources that I mention both go for grudge

Do you not think Guan Zhong means to act kindly, to go beyond his rulers self interest but to be generous and not just "do the basics and don't suicide your kingdom by turning everyone against you"?


The one that you link has: Thus the First Ruler had always bore a grudge against his presumptiousness; and, in addition to his misspoken words, he put him in jail on the charge of giving bad advice during the campaign of Hanzhong, and was about to kill him. Zhuge Liang petitioned to know of the specific crime. The First Ruler said, "Pretentious weeds growing outside one's door must be eliminated." And Zhang Yu was executed in the marketplace.

The official charges were bad advice.

Yes? And Liu Bei also treated his surbodinates kindly. Him receiving surrenders and later giving high ranks is kindness.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:43 pm

Han wrote:
Zhang Lu was a vassal of Liu Yan. Shi Xie was under Sun Wu biography in SanGuoZhi.

His SanGuoZhi seems to indicate that he was considered Sun Quan surbodinate, albeit one with unique autonomy: *snip*
Shi Xie had been in office [of Jiao Zhi] for over forty years, that is, until his death at the age of ninety sui C in the fifth year of Huang Wu [AD 226].

Sun Quan thought that the Jiao Zhi region was too distant so he split the province: He Pu, and the territories north of it [the Yu Lin, Cang Wu, and Nan Hai commanderies], was formed into one province and renamed Guang zhou with Lu Dai as the Inspector (replacing Bu Zhi); Jiao Zhi, and the territories south of it [Jiu Zhen and Ri Nan commanderies], was formed into one province but kept the name Jiao zhou with Dai Liang as the Inspector.

In addition, Sun Quan dispatched Chen Shi to replace [the deceased] Shi Xie as Grand Administrator of Jiao Zhi. Lu Dai stayed behind at Nan Hai, while on the other hand, Dai Liang and Chen Shi advanced together to He Pu.

In comparison to the others I mentioned? Sure. Legitimacy of taking Shi land matters for Wu and they can do so by simply dissing Shi descendants and not going after Shi Xie himself who was highly respected in the far South.


He was though the Liu's control got increasingly nominal before the eventual split. Yes, Shi Xie is also in same section as Liu Yao whilw Wei has seroius figures ike Lu Bu, Gongsun Zan, Tao Qian

Wu also did such things for Wei. Nobody considers Wu a Wei vassal.

Words like tribute and envoy are not ones used about subordinate to his lord, more allies and vassal states. Professor Rafe uses terms like alliance and notes in Bu Zhi's entry
He received general acceptance from Shi Xie and his kinsmen in Hepu, Jiaozhi and present-day Vietnam, though he sought alliance and acquiescence rather than direct control of that more distant region. Through Shi Xie, moreover, Bu Zhi made alliance with Yang Kai, warlord in the south of Yi province.
, Lu Dai's entry has
When the local warlord Shi Xie died in 226, his sons Shi Hui and others sought to maintain themselves independently. Lu Dai promised them good treatment if they submitted, but when they duly came to his camp he executed them. He now took over the whole region, and also sent envoys south to obtain tribute from the states of Funan, Linyi and Tangming.
.Shi Xie has
When Sun Quan's nominee as inspector of Jiao province, Bu Zhi, came to Nanhai in 211, Shi Xie offered him fommal recognition, and in 217 he sent his son Xin as hostage to Sun Quan. Shi Xie, now elderly, was evidently concerned only with a minimal maintenance of his local authority. He offered little resistance to the encroachment of Sun Quan's officials in the east, and after the death of his officer Dan Meng in Jiuzhen he lost control of that territory too.


Nowhere does anything claim Shi Xie became an officer of Wu, words used about it never reflect those of a subrordinate to his lord but junior ally/vassal state to the bigger partner

Not how those things worked. You don't just go for the people of the time but go "and the family was always a bit off" so really it is a good thing your taking over.

If you are forgiving someone who played a vital role in your son death, why is it not considered kindness? Why cant a person be practical and kind?

Sure.


To be kind is to do something that doesn't benefit yourself. Cao Cao showed great awareness that Ang's death was his fault, he showed great practicality. He showed Ding kindness but not to Zhang Xiu. Ang's death doesn't even come up when Xiu is considering which side to join

An assumption that uses logic? Chen, Pei and Sima generally question sources that are not backed up by evidence and official documents. So if one slanders Liu Bei which will contradict the other sources, they will likely dismiss it which is why no record of Liu Bei being dissed currently exist. No, Im just reiterating my stand. It will however be nice if you can summarise your stand too.


Sure but doesn't mean you got to the correct answer. I did address this "they question sources" earlier in thread

As for summarising the general stance... no. Han I know your busy (as am I) and I don't blame you for forgetting things (posts can take a few days, easy to lose track) but the general convention is the forgetting spends a few minutes to look back through the topic rather then ask the other guy to find it every time or summarise. If you really can't find it, as might happen in a long debate, fair enough but at least do that for me.

The reason for Qiao Zhou prophecy was the names of the last few East Han and Shu Han Emperors names with Liu Bian demotionXian Di abdication as the main reasoning. This is in comparison to Zhang Yu whos prediction was made while the East Han was on its last legs and Liu Bei was on a winning streak. Dissing the Han will not exist while the Han Emperor was a hostage will not sit well with Han loyalists. Dissing Liu Bei while he was rising would not sit well with Liu Bei.

Yes, except posting partial sources while omitting vital information will not help you get your point across properly and will not help me properly debate it?


The reasoning was the names of Liu Bei and Liu Shan, Qiao Zhou used two examples (like Ling/Xian but also a far earlier one) to build the case of "can prophecy by name", he didn't say Shu's fall was connected to the last Han emperors. Qiao Zhou predicting Liu Bei's dynasty fall could only happen once a dynasty existed. Again soothsaying, not dissing

What vital information? That a young Qiao Zhou didn't predict the fall of Shu before Shu even existed? If it is you needed the other two examples to understand how the naming thing worked, all you have to do is polity ask. I did not omit vital information or seek to hamper you in a debate

Yes. And its because the US and UK seems to be heavily declining which helps the democracy is failing stance. If the US or UK was on the rise, few will believe that democracy is failing. Btw Im just using the US and UK as an example because they are the major Western countries that seems to be declining.

Attacking the legitimacy of a Dynasty while its weak will make more logical sense in comparison to attacking the legitimacy of a Dynasty while its declining. Honest how? Its honest now because the 3K era is over and we know that Zhang Yu advised became true. But back then, the East Han barely existing and now this guy comes along and say the Han will end. Meanwhile, Liu Bei was on a winning streak and yet this same dude says he will fail. How does it make sense? How will the Han loyalist accept this? How would Liu Bei be ok with this?


Understood

It can also make a insecure dynasty more touchy but attacking the legitmacy of a dynasty, when weak or strong, is more damaging then predicting it will fall. The latter can be right or wrong, the former remains damaging even if the rest of your prophecy is wrong. Honest becuase nobody accused him of tampering with the soothsaying or any other source of dishonesty.

The same way the others were ok when Qiao Zhou was doing it

Fair enough. But Zhang Yu comes of as illogical because Liu Bei was winning and yet Zhang said that he will fail.


To you. Nobody else

Qiao argument was Shu Han will fall because of names with Liu Bian demotion and Xian Di abdication as support. Zhang Yu argument was Han Dynasty would fall and Liu Bei will fail even if he gains territory hurr durr. The latter seems more nonsensical than the former and more offensive because zero reason or logic to support it.

" he put him in jail on the charge of giving bad advice during the campaign of Hanzhong, and was about to kill him. Zhuge Liang petitioned to know of the specific crime. The First Ruler said, "Pretentious weeds growing outside one's door must be eliminated." "

Liu Bei already charged him with bad advice for HanZhong being the main reason which is probably why he did not give additional reasons. Fair enough. We now know that his predictions come true. But back then it probably seem inauspicious and borderline nonesensical because no logic( Bei will gain territory but lose) and reason.


Qiao Zhou attacked the names of the emperors and attacked the memorial that legitimized their very claim to the throne plus they will fall. Zhang Yu says they will fall.

Why didn't he just say "bad advice" to Zhuge Liang. Bar bad advice is not a good reason to execute someone.

and yet the reaction of it being nonsensical is said by... nobody. You think it is, there is no sense whatsoever from the histories that anyone of the time did.

Thanks for your source. But Kong Rong offical charges were due to slander though.

Fair enough. But Bei during his warlord days usually had a personal militia and later high autonomy with personal surbodinates. Furthermore, just two still isnt really a habit.


Sure. If I recall rightly, I was the one who argued that to you

I don't think anyone would argue merc commander is comparable, even over his own retinue, to emperor?

The one that you link has: Thus the First Ruler had always bore a grudge against his presumptiousness; and, in addition to his misspoken words, he put him in jail on the charge of giving bad advice during the campaign of Hanzhong, and was about to kill him. Zhuge Liang petitioned to know of the specific crime. The First Ruler said, "Pretentious weeds growing outside one's door must be eliminated." And Zhang Yu was executed in the marketplace.

The official charges were bad advice.

Yes? And Liu Bei also treated his surbodinates kindly. Him receiving surrenders and later giving high ranks is kindness.


Bore a grudge. I'm not saying he wasn't charged but it didn't really address the original point that I queried

Yes he did treat his subordinate kindly. Not suicide his kingdom is not kindness.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Han » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:47 am

He was though the Liu's control got increasingly nominal before the eventual split. Yes, Shi Xie is also in same section as Liu Yao whilw Wei has seroius figures ike Lu Bu, Gongsun Zan, Tao Qian

Wu also did such things for Wei. Nobody considers Wu a Wei vassal.

Words like tribute and envoy are not ones used about subordinate to his lord, more allies and vassal states. Professor Rafe uses terms like alliance and notes in Bu Zhi's entry
He received general acceptance from Shi Xie and his kinsmen in Hepu, Jiaozhi and present-day Vietnam, though he sought alliance and acquiescence rather than direct control of that more distant region. Through Shi Xie, moreover, Bu Zhi made alliance with Yang Kai, warlord in the south of Yi province.
, Lu Dai's entry has
When the local warlord Shi Xie died in 226, his sons Shi Hui and others sought to maintain themselves independently. Lu Dai promised them good treatment if they submitted, but when they duly came to his camp he executed them. He now took over the whole region, and also sent envoys south to obtain tribute from the states of Funan, Linyi and Tangming.
.Shi Xie has
When Sun Quan's nominee as inspector of Jiao province, Bu Zhi, came to Nanhai in 211, Shi Xie offered him fommal recognition, and in 217 he sent his son Xin as hostage to Sun Quan. Shi Xie, now elderly, was evidently concerned only with a minimal maintenance of his local authority. He offered little resistance to the encroachment of Sun Quan's officials in the east, and after the death of his officer Dan Meng in Jiuzhen he lost control of that territory too.


Nowhere does anything claim Shi Xie became an officer of Wu, words used about it never reflect those of a subrordinate to his lord but junior ally/vassal state to the bigger partner

Not how those things worked. You don't just go for the people of the time but go "and the family was always a bit off" so really it is a good thing your taking over.


Agreed. Fair enough.

Sun Quan never gave territory. Never sent a hostage. Never limit his power. Sent tribute at first but slowed down later on.

Allies dont give one another tributes. Not in Chu Han contention, not in Warring States, not even in Spring and Autumn. The occassional gifts yes.

Allies dont acquiescence. Vassals dont actively help form alliance.

Shi Hui maintaining independece is irrelevant to our debate on Shi Xie. No one was arguing that Shi Hui did not seek independence. Also, Shi Xie did have independence, like the Western regions of the Han. Because he was a surbodinate with special autonomy.

Allies and vassals do sent hostage. But they well never try to actively take over their allies or vassals territories. Taking over territories is the reason why Alliance are formed and Vassals submit.

Thats not how it worked. Whenever a Ancestor is known to be a Confucian ideal of gentleman and his descendant fails to live up to that aka crime, treason, rebellion. The confucian gentry will carry a tone of " its a pity that the Son never followed the Father.

To be kind is to do something that doesn't benefit yourself. Cao Cao showed great awareness that Ang's death was his fault, he showed great practicality. He showed Ding kindness but not to Zhang Xiu. Ang's death doesn't even come up when Xiu is considering which side to join


Yes he did. Not entirely his fault though. Zhang Xiu was the main instigator behind rebellion. Confucianism place an important emphasis on the relationship of Father and Son. Cao Cao forgiving his Son killer is an act of kindness. He showed awareness, practicality and kindness.

Sure but doesn't mean you got to the correct answer. I did address this "they question sources" earlier in thread

As for summarising the general stance... no. Han I know your busy (as am I) and I don't blame you for forgetting things (posts can take a few days, easy to lose track) but the general convention is the forgetting spends a few minutes to look back through the topic rather then ask the other guy to find it every time or summarise. If you really can't find it, as might happen in a long debate, fair enough but at least do that for me.


Tell me where Im wrong. Its difficult to prove to a person that something did not exist, because it did not exist. What we do know however, is that Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and Sima Guang actively source their works. If something does not fit the usual narrative and is not backed by a reliable source, it will usually be removed and at times even criticised. No you didnt other than " I want to live in your world where treason does not exist hurr durr"

I reiterated my point before politely requesting you do so. I see no issue here. The problem is that whenever I state my stand, you always counter with " I want to live in your world where treason does not exist hurr durr" Always. So you dont even attempt to answer my point other than dismissing it entirely. Now I ask you to reiterate your point precisely because we are getting offtrack and because I am genuinely confused. This prevent a proper healthy debate. All I want is for you to summarise your point in just two or three lines. Not even a single paragraph. I dont think its that difficult as you are making it out to be.

The reasoning was the names of Liu Bei and Liu Shan, Qiao Zhou used two examples (like Ling/Xian but also a far earlier one) to build the case of "can prophecy by name", he didn't say Shu's fall was connected to the last Han emperors. Qiao Zhou predicting Liu Bei's dynasty fall could only happen once a dynasty existed. Again soothsaying, not dissing

What vital information? That a young Qiao Zhou didn't predict the fall of Shu before Shu even existed? If it is you needed the other two examples to understand how the naming thing worked, all you have to do is polity ask. I did not omit vital information or seek to hamper you in a debate


Apologies. I meant evidence not main reasoning. Qiao Zhou literally connects the fall of Shu to Han Emperors along with Names and History, stating:

The Late Emperor's given name was "Bei" (備), which implies "well-furnished"; His Majesty's given name is "Shan" (禪), which implies "giving away". Does this mean that the Liu family is already so "well-furnished" that they should "give away" (their throne)? Their names are even more inauspicious than those of Marquis Mu and Emperor Ling's sons.[14]

Qiao Zhou prediction was based on Names, History and political realities giving support for his predictions. I was referring to Zhang Yu dissing not Qiao Zhou.

The Vital information that Xian Di abdicated. The Vital information that Qiao Zhou referred to Liu Bei as Late Emperor. Yes I need it. And I did politely ask. I also politely ask that you reiterate your point but you didnt. Yes you did omit vital information. No you did not seek to hamper me in a debate.

It can also make a insecure dynasty more touchy but attacking the legitmacy of a dynasty, when weak or strong, is more damaging then predicting it will fall. The latter can be right or wrong, the former remains damaging even if the rest of your prophecy is wrong. Honest becuase nobody accused him of tampering with the soothsaying or any other source of dishonesty.

The same way the others were ok when Qiao Zhou was doing it


When making predictions. Qiao Zhou had the advantage of political realities of that time. They were: Xian Di abdication, Liu Bei death, and later on Shu Han decline. He also gave his reasoning basing off History, Names and Han Emperors as examples. When Zhang Yu made his prediction, the East Han was barely existing with Xian Di being caged and Liu Bei was winning territories and battles left and right. Yet he said the East Han will fall and Liu Bei will gain territory but lose. This is nonsensical, especially when one considers that he has zero reasoning. Not Cao/ Sun aggresion as a reasoning.
Sure.

Same as above. Qiao Zhou had proper reasoning and political realities as support. Qiao Zhou had neither. His prophecy is literally " Han will fall, Liu Bei wins but is poo hurr durr"

To you. Nobody else


Explain to me how Zhang Yu prediction was appropriate or even made sense. How does Liu Bei will win territory but lose make sense? He does not give any reasoning which make his prediction impressive now but nonsensical back then. Because the historians witnessed the fall of Shu Han which is why they considered his prediction impressive. How did Zhang Yu prediction made sense back then.

Qiao Zhou attacked the names of the emperors and attacked the memorial that legitimized their very claim to the throne plus they will fall. Zhang Yu says they will fall.

Why didn't he just say "bad advice" to Zhuge Liang. Bar bad advice is not a good reason to execute someone.

and yet the reaction of it being nonsensical is said by... nobody. You think it is, there is no sense whatsoever from the histories that anyone of the time did.


Qiao Zhou witnessed the fall of East Han, Liu Bei and later on Shu Han. He gives his reasoning and is supported by political realities. Zhang Yu did not give reasoning for predictions and said the Han will fall while the Emperor is hostage and Liu Bei will lose even though he will conquer territory.

Because he already charged him? But then Zhuge Liang demanded to know proper reasoning. Agreed.

They witnessed the fall of East Han and Shu Han which makes Zhang Yu prophecy amazing. But back then his did not make sense logically speaking. Why dont you tell me how Zhang Yu prophecy made sense. Tell more how Liu Bei gained territory but will lose make sense. Put yourself in Liu Bei shoes and a guy come up to tell you that Zhang Yu said you will conquer territory but lose in the end. The same Zhang Yu that adviced against Liu Bei HanZhong campaign.

Sure. If I recall rightly, I was the one who argued that to you

I don't think anyone would argue merc commander is comparable, even over his own retinue, to emperor?


Not even close. I remember this portion of the debate clearly because it is summarised nicely and both sides used points to counter the others points instead of just what world do you live in hurr durr. Anyway this was how it went down. You asked whether Cao Cao delayed kills like Liu Bei. I said Xu You and Kong Rong with child name for former and slander for latter. You eventually agreed about Xu You after I used XueSanGuo. You then argued that Kong Rong death was because he frequently maneuvered against Cao Cao using a source. I agreed that it played a vital role but the main charges were Kong Rong slandering Han Chancellor Cao Cao aka treason.

Cao Cao killed gentry wayyyy before he was Duke much less King much less Emperor. Liu Bei spanked an inspector ass while being a vassal. Point is, Liu Bei was always in a position of either high autonomy or full independence after Tao Qian death and Liu Bei accepting governorship. And you still never counter my argument that two isnt habit.

Bore a grudge. I'm not saying he wasn't charged but it didn't really address the original point that I queried

Yes he did treat his subordinate kindly. Not suicide his kingdom is not kindness.


Yes he did but bad advice is the charge. Errr no, you literally asked what Im going for with Liu Bei already charged him. I then explain what I meant by Liu Bei already charged him.

Yes he did. Google disagrees defines kindness as the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate. Liu Bei accepted surrender of Gentry and Generals while being at War against said Gentry and Generals forces. He then later rewarded them with high ranks and titles. I also used Guan Zhong a man whose methods were Legalist and morals were Confucian like Liu Bei as my source to support my point. Whats your source for your claims?
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Sun Fin » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:19 am

Han wrote:Allies dont give one another tributes. Not in Chu Han contention, not in Warring States, not even in Spring and Autumn. The occassional gifts yes.

Allies dont acquiescence. Vassals dont actively help form alliance.


Gifts often look a lot like tribute in my opinion. Like when the Early Han dynasty were paying 'gifts' to the Xiongnu to secure and maintain treaties. That was tribute in every way other than phrasing, simply to save face. On top of paying these 'gifts' to the Xiongnu on various occasions, like in 192 BC the Empress had to beg their so called ally to not invade China.
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7213
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Han » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:56 pm

I did not mention the Han- Xiongnu War because it was more about foreign diplomacy than Civil War strife. But in the case of Spring and Autumn and Warring States, allies definitely do not sent tribute excluding the Zhou House and the occasional Hegemons. There is the occasional gifts of goodwill but thats it. This applies even more so to the Warring States where the majority were more or less equals in terms of power bar early game Chu and later game Qin. As for the Chu Han contention, there were zero tributes between allies until Han GaoZu Liu Bang defeated Xi Chu Ba Wang Xiang Yu. Once again theres the occasional gifts like HongMen but thats it as far as I recall.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Sun Fin » Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:04 am

Whilst you could argue that the Han- Xiongnu War was different in terms of internal or external I disagree. I think it is more relevant then the examples you gave as it was more recent example than the civil wars you listed which had happened a few centuries earlier.
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7213
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:07 pm

If I put 1 in front of page number, assume it should be a 2. Like 187 should mean 287, I find I keep doing that

Agreed. Fair enough.

Sun Quan never gave territory. Never sent a hostage. Never limit his power. Sent tribute at first but slowed down later on.

Allies dont give one another tributes. Not in Chu Han contention, not in Warring States, not even in Spring and Autumn. The occassional gifts yes.

Allies dont acquiescence. Vassals dont actively help form alliance.

Shi Hui maintaining independece is irrelevant to our debate on Shi Xie. No one was arguing that Shi Hui did not seek independence. Also, Shi Xie did have independence, like the Western regions of the Han. Because he was a surbodinate with special autonomy.

Allies and vassals do sent hostage. But they well never try to actively take over their allies or vassals territories. Taking over territories is the reason why Alliance are formed and Vassals submit.

Thats not how it worked. Whenever a Ancestor is known to be a Confucian ideal of gentleman and his descendant fails to live up to that aka crime, treason, rebellion. The confucian gentry will carry a tone of " its a pity that the Son never followed the Father.


Sun Quan was not such a passive figure (though an officer doesn't give up territory)or such a "weaker partner" in an alliance.

Not always but they do. Shi Xie did to Wei and to Wu, sometimes tribes to the relevant Chinese court, Wu to Wei, Liu Biao to Li Jue and so on. Officers didn't send tribute to their lord

Depends on the ally. Lu Su did for Wu

According to whom? Name one historian who calls Shi Xie an officer of Wu.

Hostages yes. One doesn't take land from your officers becuase it is your land, if the ally is weak enough/you can get away with it, it can happen.

Yes it is. It is the way it worked for Cao family with the Sima's, the crime of one generation is not enough but "well obviously one bad egg is not a reason to seize control but the family, well I love the guy but really ancestor bloke was also not a particularly good bloke". It also tries to limit, in this case, Shi Xie's popularity with the local people.

Yes he did. Not entirely his fault though. Zhang Xiu was the main instigator behind rebellion. Confucianism place an important emphasis on the relationship of Father and Son. Cao Cao forgiving his Son killer is an act of kindness. He showed awareness, practicality and kindness.


If, by accident, I give the impression to someone I going to harm them, I can't complain if they punch me and leg it for their own survival.

Nobody remarked on Cao Cao's act as being an act of kindness

Tell me where Im wrong. Its difficult to prove to a person that something did not exist, because it did not exist. What we do know however, is that Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and Sima Guang actively source their works. If something does not fit the usual narrative and is not backed by a reliable source, it will usually be removed and at times even criticised. No you didnt other than " I want to live in your world where treason does not exist hurr durr"

I reiterated my point before politely requesting you do so. I see no issue here. The problem is that whenever I state my stand, you always counter with " I want to live in your world where treason does not exist hurr durr" Always. So you dont even attempt to answer my point other than dismissing it entirely. Now I ask you to reiterate your point precisely because we are getting offtrack and because I am genuinely confused. This prevent a proper healthy debate. All I want is for you to summarise your point in just two or three lines. Not even a single paragraph. I dont think its that difficult as you are making it out to be.


Ok I'm going to assume you don't know how "hurr durr" comes across but hint, it is offensive.Don't do it again please

I am however struggling to convince myself that when I asked you to go back over the posts, you did more then one post.

I started the "doesn't always criticize their work" on page 286 but more built on it in 287. On the "why doesn't Liu Bei have one", it is partly why Cao Cao got one on 286 and gave more on Liu Bei in 287. Now if you want the latter part fleshed out, I'm happy to do that

At some points when my points get ignored and your constantly repeating the same thing, I admit I did go with "I like this fantasy world" becuase I think your version is an very optimistic one that has a very very kindly view of human nature. Or the dangerous "no smoke without fire" version might be suited? However I do have a serious point, your view only works if you believe no good man can ever be slandered but history has shown slanders hits good and bad alike.

The reason I'm not just quoting it that this is what I have asked of you (bar mod stuff) during our debates: 1) The odd source. Which is conventional requirement but I hope I have never overdone the request

2) What I'm doing right now. Which also fits within the convention.

What you have asked:
1) Sources. You ask more then others but that is fair enough

2) Typing up something from Qiao Zhou book, which I had told you was from the book. So I did, obeying the conventions, took a fair chunk of my time (would have taken me longer then others for certain reasons but still would take most awhile). Which did not go down well

3) That every time you forget something from debate (which isn't the problem), I have to go find it for you or write it all up for you again. That isn't the convention, the convention is on you to track it down. It feels like I'm having to do this every post or two now

Apologies. I meant evidence not main reasoning. Qiao Zhou literally connects the fall of Shu to Han Emperors along with Names and History, stating:

The Late Emperor's given name was "Bei" (備), which implies "well-furnished"; His Majesty's given name is "Shan" (禪), which implies "giving away". Does this mean that the Liu family is already so "well-furnished" that they should "give away" (their throne)? Their names are even more inauspicious than those of Marquis Mu and Emperor Ling's sons.[14]

Qiao Zhou prediction was based on Names, History and political realities giving support for his predictions. I was referring to Zhang Yu dissing not Qiao Zhou.

The Vital information that Xian Di abdicated. The Vital information that Qiao Zhou referred to Liu Bei as Late Emperor. Yes I need it. And I did politely ask. I also politely ask that you reiterate your point but you didnt. Yes you did omit vital information. No you did not seek to hamper me in a debate.


He uses two examples to establish the methodology and the worldplay, to provide examples. If you needed those two to understand how it worked (or Farmer's explanation), neither Farmer or myself connected it as Han-Shu connection (as it were). If the prophecy had been "becuase of the Han" then yes, that would be highly relevant but given Duke Mu is the other example, it isn't taken as such.

You know why I didn't mention the late Emperor? Because where I did copy down (bar Chinese letters), I copied it word for word. The term late emperor is not used at all. I used the term Former Sovereign becuase that is what is in there. I can not deny you information that simply doesn't exist.

I know you were referring to Zhang Yu. Prophecy is still not dissing

Again unless you feel Qiao Zhou was epically stupid enough to predict the fall of Shu before it existed and attacked the legitimacy of the memorial justifying it's rise before the memorial ever existed, not sure how the Xian thing is vital.

No had you gone "I'm afraid I need the full name prophecy please" then sure, that would have been a polite request. What I got was attacks for laziness from a guy who won't even look up past posts, of being told it was unacceptable, so on and so forth. When you requested page numbers, I gave it

Oh I'm certainly not accusing you of being impolite about reiterating the point but at this point, I have grown tired of doing your work for you while being slammed for writing up a lengthy source

When making predictions. Qiao Zhou had the advantage of political realities of that time. They were: Xian Di abdication, Liu Bei death, and later on Shu Han decline. He also gave his reasoning basing off History, Names and Han Emperors as examples. When Zhang Yu made his prediction, the East Han was barely existing with Xian Di being caged and Liu Bei was winning territories and battles left and right. Yet he said the East Han will fall and Liu Bei will gain territory but lose. This is nonsensical, especially when one considers that he has zero reasoning. Not Cao/ Sun aggresion as a reasoning.
Sure.

Same as above. Qiao Zhou had proper reasoning and political realities as support. Qiao Zhou had neither. His prophecy is literally " Han will fall, Liu Bei wins but is poo hurr durr"


We have no idea how Zhang Yu made his prophecy or what exactly it was based on. Again though, nobody at the time felt Zhang Yu's was nonsensical or lacked reasoning

Zhang Yu at no point insults Liu Bei.

Explain to me how Zhang Yu prediction was appropriate or even made sense. How does Liu Bei will win territory but lose make sense? He does not give any reasoning which make his prediction impressive now but nonsensical back then. Because the historians witnessed the fall of Shu Han which is why they considered his prediction impressive. How did Zhang Yu prediction made sense back then.


Sorry most of next quote can also be answered in this one so merging it with this one.

We get no information on how Zhang Yu made prophecies as a general thing from the stuff we have, let alone this one specific (bar he liked physiognomy and that related one). Maybe he looked up to the stars and got that amazingly specific insight :wink: Maybe he believed Liu Bei's cause was going to fail (which wouldn't be that unreasonable) and made judgements based on what he saw and that shaped his prophecy

I also tend to take a cynical view on the specifics of a prophecy. I'll take the general gist so yeah, Zhang Yu predicted Han lost favour and something bad would happen. Prophecies will either be so helpfully vague that you can fit anything in it or I suspect they get touched up to fit what happened later. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the 9 years timing being so amazingly accurate is one such touch up

Whatever the exact prophecy, nobody seems to have felt it was nonsensical at the time.


Because he already charged him? But then Zhuge Liang demanded to know proper reasoning. Agreed.

.


So Zhuge Liang didn't feel either the advice or the prophecy were enough reason to charge him?

Not even close. I remember this portion of the debate clearly because it is summarised nicely and both sides used points to counter the others points instead of just what world do you live in hurr durr. Anyway this was how it went down. You asked whether Cao Cao delayed kills like Liu Bei. I said Xu You and Kong Rong with child name for former and slander for latter. You eventually agreed about Xu You after I used XueSanGuo. You then argued that Kong Rong death was because he frequently maneuvered against Cao Cao using a source. I agreed that it played a vital role but the main charges were Kong Rong slandering Han Chancellor Cao Cao aka treason.


Oh I was certainly wrong about Xu You

Page 286 onwards your talking of Kong Rong badmouthing Cao Cao to Wu envoy, page 287 onwards I'm putting out that was slander by Chi Lu and co.

Cao Cao killed gentry wayyyy before he was Duke much less King much less Emperor. Liu Bei spanked an inspector ass while being a vassal. Point is, Liu Bei was always in a position of either high autonomy or full independence after Tao Qian death and Liu Bei accepting governorship. And you still never counter my argument that two isnt habit.


Cao Caowas a warlord from the start of the civil war. Liu Bei had a brief spell in Xu before he got a base in Jing and only really had a proper administration with law reforms and a court once he took Yi.

My argument is he had very short space of time of being a ruler so we have limited examples

Yes he did but bad advice is the charge. Errr no, you literally asked what Im going for with Liu Bei already charged him. I then explain what I meant by Liu Bei already charged him.

Yes he did. Google disagrees defines kindness as the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate. Liu Bei accepted surrender of Gentry and Generals while being at War against said Gentry and Generals forces. He then later rewarded them with high ranks and titles. I also used Guan Zhong a man whose methods were Legalist and morals were Confucian like Liu Bei as my source to support my point. Whats your source for your claims?


Yes and I'm still puzzled. My question that started it was, in effect, "why didn't he tell Zhuge Liang the reason", he has already charged should make it easier for Liu Bei to go "well I charged him with" so not sure why "he was already charged" is the answer

That nobody in the era claimed Liu Bei taking surrendering generals was kind? What they did like was gifts and being given good governance and his treatment of people of Yi pre the invasion.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Han » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:01 pm

Sun Quan was not such a passive figure (though an officer doesn't give up territory)or such a "weaker partner" in an alliance.

Not always but they do. Shi Xie did to Wei and to Wu, sometimes tribes to the relevant Chinese court, Wu to Wei, Liu Biao to Li Jue and so on. Officers didn't send tribute to their lord

Depends on the ally. Lu Su did for Wu

According to whom? Name one historian who calls Shi Xie an officer of Wu.

Hostages yes. One doesn't take land from your officers becuase it is your land, if the ally is weak enough/you can get away with it, it can happen.

Yes it is. It is the way it worked for Cao family with the Sima's, the crime of one generation is not enough but "well obviously one bad egg is not a reason to seize control but the family, well I love the guy but really ancestor bloke was also not a particularly good bloke". It also tries to limit, in this case, Shi Xie's popularity with the local people.


But you stated: Wu also did such things for Wei. Nobody considers Wu a Wei vassal.

Liu Biao and Shi Xie did not sent tribute to Li Jue and Cao Cao but the Han Government dominated by Li Jue regime and the Han Government controlled by Cao Cao forces. Meanwhile, Shi Xie sent tribute to Sun Quan who was but a marquis at that time.

Give me two examples? I said vassals. Not surbodinates. Lu Su was Sun Quan surbodinate.

Him personally submitting to Sun Quan which is recorded everywhere? If we consider Zang Ba to be Cao Cao surbodinate then why not Shi Xie barring military service.( He was old and never led troops before in the first place).

Yes. Examples for the latter post Chibi? No one take land without negative consequences. Zhang Lu tried and succeeded to remain independent and his family was massacred. Liu Bei plotted against Liu Zhang even before the forming of the alliance. When Cao Pi removed Zang Ba autonomy, he rewarded him generously. Yet Sun Quan move in to Jiao Province and took 1/2( being generous here) of Shi Xie territory and Shi Xie was contend just to remain autonomous, personally submitted, sent a hostage etx etc( aforementioned points). When the young Shis rebelled, their gentry begged them to submit to Sun Quan. Zhang Lu gentry never did such a thing and seemed extremely loyal to Zhang Lu as time went on. Showing that Zhang Lu was considered independent by his gentries but not so the young Shis.

The Simas regents dissed the later generations Caos but not so much the earlier Caos. Other then the obvious purges which really arent their fault because of the constant rebellions, plus the women. Anyway, using Kings and Emperor as a comparison to Gentry and Lords? Really? The Cao Man Zhuan was never officially published in the Wu court. Even if it was, it would be extremely difficult for the majority ethnic minorities in Northen Vietnam/ Southern China to get their hands on it. Histories and Books were only actively discussed among the gentry. So it isnt a propaganda thing.

If, by accident, I give the impression to someone I going to harm them, I can't complain if they punch me and leg it for their own survival.

Nobody remarked on Cao Cao's act as being an act of kindness


Once again, congratulations on using 21st century peaceful West to compare to Han Dynasty civil war. Now to answer your point, killing a son is very different and extreme in comparison to just a small fight.

The traditional histories of Ancient China paints Cao Cao as a phenomenal talent but a person who has a bad streak in him. Other than obvious acts like him setting up funerals and grieving his surbodinates, there are very few tines Cao Cao is painted in a good light morally speaking.

Ok I'm going to assume you don't know how "hurr durr" comes across but hint, it is offensive.Don't do it again please

I am however struggling to convince myself that when I asked you to go back over the posts, you did more then one post.

I started the "doesn't always criticize their work" on page 286 but more built on it in 287. On the "why doesn't Liu Bei have one", it is partly why Cao Cao got one on 286 and gave more on Liu Bei in 287. Now if you want the latter part fleshed out, I'm happy to do that

At some points when my points get ignored and your constantly repeating the same thing, I admit I did go with "I like this fantasy world" becuase I think your version is an very optimistic one that has a very very kindly view of human nature. Or the dangerous "no smoke without fire" version might be suited? However I do have a serious point, your view only works if you believe no good man can ever be slandered but history has shown slanders hits good and bad alike.

The reason I'm not just quoting it that this is what I have asked of you (bar mod stuff) during our debates: 1) The odd source. Which is conventional requirement but I hope I have never overdone the request

2) What I'm doing right now. Which also fits within the convention.

What you have asked:
1) Sources. You ask more then others but that is fair enough

2) Typing up something from Qiao Zhou book, which I had told you was from the book. So I did, obeying the conventions, took a fair chunk of my time (would have taken me longer then others for certain reasons but still would take most awhile). Which did not go down well

3) That every time you forget something from debate (which isn't the problem), I have to go find it for you or write it all up for you again. That isn't the convention, the convention is on you to track it down. It feels like I'm having to do this every post or two now


Fair enough. Thats something Trump fanbase frequently spew and I definitely do not want to come across as a Trump surpporter.

I went back thrice. All your arguments is basically " Thats not how treason works" and " I wish I can live in your world"

Except that I countered those points already?

I have never ignored your points as far as I can recall. Yes. And I countered this very same point previous times with: Even if there were slanders. The multiple historians will notice that it contradicts and will dismiss it. This is just a summary. You can take a look again to see my full points.

Very true. So your argument is that I summarise my point but you cant even type 2 lines to summarise yours even after I requested politely multiple times because you did less than me?

No. I had already countered your points previously in 286 plus 287 and all the pages after. But then your arguments fell into " I wish to live in your world blah blah" and "thats not how it works" with zero elaboration or even explanation from the lower portion of 287 till now. This does not in any way whatsoever that actually countered my point, which is why I requested you to summarise your point so that we can both have a proper debate.

1) Yes. And so why mention it? Keep in mind that I do also share my sources like you stated and even occasionally link sources immediately before or after the source is copypasted.

2) I requested a source. You chose the Qiao book. I repeatedly thank you for posting your sources excluding the one you type out because I already explained why it do not go well down. Just to recap, its because you never posted full source and omitted vital information.

3) I requested you to summarise your stand only after I did so. I never asked you to track down stuff.

He uses two examples to establish the methodology and the worldplay, to provide examples. If you needed those two to understand how it worked (or Farmer's explanation), neither Farmer or myself connected it as Han-Shu connection (as it were). If the prophecy had been "becuase of the Han" then yes, that would be highly relevant but given Duke Mu is the other example, it isn't taken as such.

You know why I didn't mention the late Emperor? Because where I did copy down (bar Chinese letters), I copied it word for word. The term late emperor is not used at all. I used the term Former Sovereign becuase that is what is in there. I can not deny you information that simply doesn't exist.

I know you were referring to Zhang Yu. Prophecy is still not dissing

Again unless you feel Qiao Zhou was epically stupid enough to predict the fall of Shu before it existed and attacked the legitimacy of the memorial justifying it's rise before the memorial ever existed, not sure how the Xian thing is vital.

No had you gone "I'm afraid I need the full name prophecy please" then sure, that would have been a polite request. What I got was attacks for laziness from a guy who won't even look up past posts, of being told it was unacceptable, so on and so forth. When you requested page numbers, I gave it

Oh I'm certainly not accusing you of being impolite about reiterating the point but at this point, I have grown tired of doing your work for you while being slammed for writing up a lengthy source


This is completely false. Huan and Ling were used as evidence after Duke and was summarised along with Duke.

Yeah I apologise for including the Liu Bei thing. But you never mentioned about Xian Di abdication and Bian demotion.

Someone felt it sensitive enough to report to Liu Bei. Also " Liu Bei will conquer territory but lose" does not make any logical sense. Add the part that the Han will fall while the Han Emperor is homejailed is slander to the Han Loyalists. Add all this and yes it is prediction, but its also slander to the Ancient Chinese.

Qiao Zhou make two predictions. The first was when he reffered to Liu Bei as former Soverign which means Liu Bei already died which means Shu Han already existed. The second timeline was given which is during the Huang Hao domination era. Xian Di abdication is vital because Qiao Zhou used it as evidence for Shu Han to fall and political realities in comparison to Zhang Yu.

I literally stated: Right. Apologies. I didnt know it was a book. I thought it was an internet source. Now can you tell me the book name plus page number so that I can try to google-fu? And you need to calm down. I simply used quotation marks to remind you that what you posted does not in any way, shape, or form constitute as a proper source simply because you removed crucial information in between paragraphs and not before or after the main points but within them. This creates a situation where the source becomes unreliable simply due to missing information and thus cannot be used.

And so would you like to post the full thing without leaving gaps within the sources? Or giving me book name plus page number?

I never attacked you. I did look back. I did explain why it was understandable. Yep you did and I thanked you for doing so.

Right. I never slammed anybody. I never attacked you. I never attacked you for posting long source. What I did do was inform you that omitting information in between paragraphs is inappropriate and then elaborating why omitting vital information is wrong.

We have no idea how Zhang Yu made his prophecy or what exactly it was based on. Again though, nobody at the time felt Zhang Yu's was nonsensical or lacked reasoning

Zhang Yu at no point insults Liu Bei.


Someone informed Liu Bei. We are not given any reasoning whatsoever.

Counter this. How is: Han will fall, Liu Bei wins but is poo with zero reasoning and explanation is not an insult to Han Dynasty and Liu Bei.

Sorry most of next quote can also be answered in this one so merging it with this one.

We get no information on how Zhang Yu made prophecies as a general thing from the stuff we have, let alone this one specific (bar he liked physiognomy and that related one). Maybe he looked up to the stars and got that amazingly specific insight :wink: Maybe he believed Liu Bei's cause was going to fail (which wouldn't be that unreasonable) and made judgements based on what he saw and that shaped his prophecy

I also tend to take a cynical view on the specifics of a prophecy. I'll take the general gist so yeah, Zhang Yu predicted Han lost favour and something bad would happen. Prophecies will either be so helpfully vague that you can fit anything in it or I suspect they get touched up to fit what happened later. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the 9 years timing being so amazingly accurate is one such touch up

Whatever the exact prophecy, nobody seems to have felt it was nonsensical at the time.


You dont have to apologise for this. No mistake.

And so Liu Bei, a self proclaimed Han loyalist who was on a winning streak should according to you, accept that " Looking at stars is a good enough reasoning for why a 400 year old Dynasty will definitely fall. And Zhang Yu believing Liu Bei's cause was going to fail even though he was Liu Bei surbodinate" is reasonable.

Me and you can afford to do so. Back then the Han existed for 400 years and Xian Di was restricted. With such tensions in mind, Zhang Yu claims would not sit well with Liu Bei regime which was based on Han loyalists.

With zero reasoning its not logical unlike Qiao Zhou. How is it not nonsensical? We also do not know if any Han loyalist knew of Zhang Yu prophecy. But out of those that knew, at least one found it sensitive enough to inform Liu Bei.

So Zhuge Liang didn't feel either the advice or the prophecy were enough reason to charge him?


Zhuge probably felt that Liu Bei was too harsh to execute someone for bad advice, because advice being wrong do frequently happen.

Oh I was certainly wrong about Xu You

Page 286 onwards your talking of Kong Rong badmouthing Cao Cao to Wu envoy, page 287 onwards I'm putting out that was slander by Chi Lu and co.


I was giving the full explanation of how it all went down.

Than I literally countered that Kong Rong official charges were slander to Sun Quan envoy, with source XueSanGuo.

Cao Caowas a warlord from the start of the civil war. Liu Bei had a brief spell in Xu before he got a base in Jing and only really had a proper administration with law reforms and a court once he took Yi.

My argument is he had very short space of time of being a ruler so we have limited examples


Which is what I meant by high autonomy. Liu Bei was always in a position to kill gentry like Cao Cao and Sun Quan after Sun Ce death.

Which I countered with Liu Bei still had high autonomy and two still isnt a habit.

Yes and I'm still puzzled. My question that started it was, in effect, "why didn't he tell Zhuge Liang the reason", he has already charged should make it easier for Liu Bei to go "well I charged him with" so not sure why "he was already charged" is the answer

That nobody in the era claimed Liu Bei taking surrendering generals was kind? What they did like was gifts and being given good governance and his treatment of people of Yi pre the invasion.


Liu Bei already charged with bad advice but Zhuge Liang felt its not good enough or inappropriate whichever. Then after this, Liu Bei would be loss for words because saying " this dude offended me and he also had unreasonable stuff" would come off as either insecure or complicate thing further. Its better for him to just use it as an excuse to call Zhang a pretentious weed to get Zhuge one of his higher civil gentry to shut up.

Source: Liu Bei kongming SGZ bio.

In the summer of the nineteenth year of Jian’an [AD 214], the defences of Luocheng were broken. (32) After being surrounded for several days in Chengdu, Liu Zhang came out and surrendered. (33) The people in Shu were very happy and celebrating. The First Sovereign ordered lots of wine to be brought for the troops and conferred gifts to the Shu officials. The First Sovereign became Imperial Protector of Yizhou; Zhuge Liang his assistant; Fa Zheng his advisor; Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Ma Chao his subordinate generals; titles were given to Xu Jing, Mi Zhu, Jian Yong, Dong He, Huang Quan, Li Yan (who were Liu Zhang’s former generals), Fei Guan (who was Liu Zhang’s relative), Peng Yang (who Liu Zhang did not like), Liu Ba. Liu Zhang was wary and jealous of people like Liu Ba but the First Sovereign gave them the right positions and all were very satisfied. (XL)

XL: It can be seen here that Liu Bei not only treated his own subordinates generously but also Liu Zhang’s generals and subordinates. We note that Liu Ba, who constantly avoided Liu Bei for many years, was promoted. Everyone was satisfied and Rafe De Crespigny mentions about Liu Bei’s amazing charisma and how he won the alleigance of people from all over China, from his home province of Zhuo (Jian Yong), to Xuzhou (Mi Zhu), the Jingzhou region and now the officials and generals of Yizhou.

32 is Zhang Ren.

Zhen Shi Fu Gan: Liu Bei was a person who was very generous and courteous with everyone, hence many people were willing to fight for him. Zhuge Liang was a very capable person. He was very righteous and resourceful, hence he was most suitable to be his Prime Minister. Guan Yu and Zhang Fei were brave yet righteous, able to withstand ten thousand men, and hence were suitable to be his commanders. These three people together were true talents of the time. And together with Liu Bei’s charisma and vision, how can they not succeed?

This was labelled after 33. Accepting Liu Zhang surrender.

I literally stated: Liu Bei accepted surrender of Gentry and Generals while being at War against said Gentry and Generals forces. He then later rewarded them with high ranks and titles. As my reasoning for Confucian kindness. With Guan Zhong encouraging to treat gentry with courtesy as a source to back my claim.

Whilst you could argue that the Han- Xiongnu War was different in terms of internal or external I disagree. I think it is more relevant then the examples you gave as it was more recent example than the civil wars you listed which had happened a few centuries earlier.


The Han- Xiongnu war was a unified China under a unified gentry against the Northen barbarians. A war between two completely different States. The Fall of Eastern Han is a Civil War Strife with gentry infighting, harem intrigues and constant rebellions. The Spring and Autumn, Warring States and Chu Han Contention fall under the latter much more so than the former if at all.

Other than Zhou YaFu campaign and Wang Mang uprising, which both ended extremely quickly, there are no other civil wars that were as vital or long as the Fall of East Han which is why I needed to use Spring and Autumn, Warring States and Chu Han.

Also, when advisors advice their rulers in 3K, they usually use the aforementioned time periods I gave you as reasoning or evidence to support their claims and advice. Sometimes it goes even way back to the Shang Zhou period.

Laatly, if we were discussing about Cao Cao Northen Campaign or the Yuan GongSun conflict, than I would agree with your use of Han Xiongnu. But what we are debating is post Chibi. When the North was irrelevant until Cao Cao Western campaign which was use to punish rebels and not ethnic minorities and Zhuge Liang Northen Campaigns which was mainly to restore the Han.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:15 pm

But you stated: Wu also did such things for Wei. Nobody considers Wu a Wei vassal.

Liu Biao and Shi Xie did not sent tribute to Li Jue and Cao Cao but the Han Government dominated by Li Jue regime and the Han Government controlled by Cao Cao forces. Meanwhile, Shi Xie sent tribute to Sun Quan who was but a marquis at that time.

Give me two examples? I said vassals. Not surbodinates. Lu Su was Sun Quan surbodinate.

Him personally submitting to Sun Quan which is recorded everywhere? If we consider Zang Ba to be Cao Cao surbodinate then why not Shi Xie barring military service.( He was old and never led troops before in the first place).

Yes. Examples for the latter post Chibi? No one take land without negative consequences. Zhang Lu tried and succeeded to remain independent and his family was massacred. Liu Bei plotted against Liu Zhang even before the forming of the alliance. When Cao Pi removed Zang Ba autonomy, he rewarded him generously. Yet Sun Quan move in to Jiao Province and took 1/2( being generous here) of Shi Xie territory and Shi Xie was contend just to remain autonomous, personally submitted, sent a hostage etx etc( aforementioned points). When the young Shis rebelled, their gentry begged them to submit to Sun Quan. Zhang Lu gentry never did such a thing and seemed extremely loyal to Zhang Lu as time went on. Showing that Zhang Lu was considered independent by his gentries but not so the young Shis.

The Simas regents dissed the later generations Caos but not so much the earlier Caos. Other then the obvious purges which really arent their fault because of the constant rebellions, plus the women. Anyway, using Kings and Emperor as a comparison to Gentry and Lords? Really? The Cao Man Zhuan was never officially published in the Wu court. Even if it was, it would be extremely difficult for the majority ethnic minorities in Northen Vietnam/ Southern China to get their hands on it. Histories and Books were only actively discussed among the gentry. So it isnt a propaganda thing.


True. Shi Xie sometimes gets vassal state (though never officer of Wu) becuase of how weak he was to things like Wu incursions. As possibly embarrassing as Wu's "surrender" to Wei was, only someone on a wind up or really reading too much into wording rather then reality would really consider Wu a vassal state during that period

Yeah and nobody but you considers it as not part of gaining alliance when they did that. Sun Quan was a major warlord and the big power in the region whatever his technical rank

Oh sorry. Yang Feng was used in such a way off the top of my head

As a vassal state. Again, name one person who calls Shi Xie an officer of Wu? Because Zang Ba took miliatry service (unlike Shi Xie), he moved around as requested (unlike Shi Xie who remained at his base) rather remain at his powerbase, he took up positions at court and elsewhere. An officer takes, in effect, active service and pay. A vassal state is left on the throne (as it were), has to pay tribute and is dominated by the superior partner. One also doesn't get things like this
Although Bu Zhi was formally recognized as the Inspector of the province, the real power rested with Shi Xie. The former did not press the latter too hard; thus the two were able to live peacefully side by side for ten years until Bu Zhi was replaced by Lu Dai in AD 220. See Bu Zhi’s bio for further details.
about Zang Ba

Sun Quan in Jing 215 but there are very few factions post Chi Bi. Sorry when did Shi gentry urge them to submit? One guy did

One builds the sense of "well the family has always been a bit off", "Cao Cao was a great man of course but well, there is a reason he couldn't conquer the land." sort of thing. Was not the term used about Cao man zhuan "hostile propaganda?" Key word propaganda. Is it not in the sgz (as an annotations so around in Pei's time), is it not mentioned in works like Professor Rafe's (even if not in complimentary terms) annotation) so it works, it's words get spread around. Have you not used it's version of Yuan Zhong's death yourself which makes Shi Xie an assassin of good men? It has worked. I have no idea how widespread it was and when during three kingdoms itself.

Once again, congratulations on using 21st century peaceful West to compare to Han Dynasty civil war. Now to answer your point, killing a son is very different and extreme in comparison to just a small fight.

The traditional histories of Ancient China paints Cao Cao as a phenomenal talent but a person who has a bad streak in him. Other than obvious acts like him setting up funerals and grieving his surbodinates, there are very few tines Cao Cao is painted in a good light morally speaking.


I agree it isn't a perfect comparison

Oh they certainly portray the bad streak but, for example, the appraisal at the end of Cao Cao's sgz (granted two translations give variance so one of them is wrong) includes kindness while nothing tries to hide his ability to forgive old grievances like Wei Chong. Yet when they cover Cao Ang blame, it is on Cao Cao from those around at the time, the guy who blames Zhang Xiu is Cao Pi.

Fair enough. Thats something Trump fanbase frequently spew and I definitely do not want to come across as a Trump surpporter.

I went back thrice. All your arguments is basically " Thats not how treason works" and " I wish I can live in your world"

Except that I countered those points already?

I have never ignored your points as far as I can recall. Yes. And I countered this very same point previous times with: Even if there were slanders. The multiple historians will notice that it contradicts and will dismiss it. This is just a summary. You can take a look again to see my full points.


Thank you, it is appreciated.

Ok there are two strands basically:

1) The "sources" one/Pei and co would have commented. Starting in 286, I warned Pei didn't always comment on his sources, you wondered what version of the sgz I was reading and pointed to where Pei did point out contradictions. On 287, I pointed out I said sometimes not always and pointed to three examples. One of which (Liu Ping, you would thought Wu I more meant the one involving Liu Bei) caused confusion but we sorted that out. You did engage fully on this strand so I am surprised that you came back with this a few pages later

2) The why wasn't there an anti Liu Bei version. I talked of short reign, Wei didn't even do one for Wu, that the idea of hatchet job would be based on virtue contradicts the nature of a hatchet job, it made no sense for Wu to do it before talking about "wonderful world" (I also mentioned even Liu Yu got slandered but that was a small line). Your response to each and every one is along the lines of "Liu Bei is so virtuous that it could never happen"

Very true. So your argument is that I summarise my point but you cant even type 2 lines to summarise yours even after I requested politely multiple times because you did less than me?


No, I'm not even sure how that comes across. I'm just not willing to do your work for you anymore

1) Yes. And so why mention it? Keep in mind that I do also share my sources like you stated and even occasionally link sources immediately before or after the source is copypasted.

2) I requested a source. You chose the Qiao book. I repeatedly thank you for posting your sources excluding the one you type out because I already explained why it do not go well down. Just to recap, its because you never posted full source and omitted vital information.

3) I requested you to summarise your stand only after I did so. I never asked you to track down stuff.



1) Yes, I did point out I have asked for sources. Why mention it? To show the reflective workload in the debate is getting very one sided.

2) It is the only source of the prophecies that I'm aware of and I don't recommend wiki as a proper source so even if I had been aware of that, I wouldn't have gone for it. I made clear prewriting it up where I it was coming from

I have pointed out I am allowed by convention to snip long sources. You may not like it but tough. I did not omit vital information, the Xian thing is your massively interpreting it differently from Farmer and myself in a way I didn't foresee coming

3) The "I forgot", let's start from 287: Bar my good wishes to Vinny, it opens up with my pointing out I had answered a question repeatedly (also had tracking down a source again but in fairness, that one was easy for you to miss), when I did you did thank me which I do appreciate, and there is another which has me pointing out I had set out my stance repeatedly but rather then look back, you ask me to summarize them both again. I had to remind you I had linked you to Zhang Yu's death in sgz

288: You seemed to forget both the sources discussion and my wider points about no Liu Bei slander book, you forgot I was posting from a book despite being told it was from Farmer's Qiao Zhou work, you forgot the Zhang Yu source again. Plus the Kong Rong one :wink:

289 has been continuation on other forgotten ones

This is completely false. Huan and Ling were used as evidence after Duke and was summarised along with Duke.

Yeah I apologise for including the Liu Bei thing. But you never mentioned about Xian Di abdication and Bian demotion.

Someone felt it sensitive enough to report to Liu Bei. Also " Liu Bei will conquer territory but lose" does not make any logical sense. Add the part that the Han will fall while the Han Emperor is homejailed is slander to the Han Loyalists. Add all this and yes it is prediction, but its also slander to the Ancient Chinese.

Qiao Zhou make two predictions. The first was when he reffered to Liu Bei as former Soverign which means Liu Bei already died which means Shu Han already existed. The second timeline was given which is during the Huang Hao domination era. Xian Di abdication is vital because Qiao Zhou used it as evidence for Shu Han to fall and political realities in comparison to Zhang Yu.

I literally stated (snip)
I never attacked you. I did look back. I did explain why it was understandable. Yep you did and I thanked you for doing so.

Right. I never slammed anybody. I never attacked you. I never attacked you for posting long source. What I did do was inform you that omitting information in between paragraphs is inappropriate and then elaborating why omitting vital information is wrong.


Qiao Zhou didn't connect Liu Bei and co with the Duke of Jin or with Emperor Ling, he built a case for "naming prophecy works" is how Farmer (as I read his explanation afterwards) and I both see it. You clearly see it in an entirely different way that I could not have anticipated since it never occurred to me that you would deem Qiao Zhou as connecting Liu Bei's dynasty to the Duke of Jin. It is his not false but two people getting wildly different interpretations of the text

Because bar showing how naming thing worked, it is irrelevant. Given the unexpected direction you have interpreted this has led me to citing Farmer's explanation afterwards, I'm willing to quote that but may take awhile. Let me know if you want it

Sure. There are umpteen reasons why someone informed Liu Bei and it is impossible to guess which one. The 3kingdoms China and every historian is wrong, Han is right, everybody else just can't see the illogic but thank goodness for clear-sighted Han :wink: In all seriousness, you may not be able to understand it and that's fine, we can talk about it but when it is everybody vs you, maybe the problem is your failure to understand? Which is fine and very understandable (this sort of thing would be far more helpful if there was more detail I do agree) but the issue isn't with Zhang Yu. We have already talked of inappropriate use of the term slander and that it is insulting all of Ancient Chinese is just... odd and I realize your probably going for effect with that but it is just too over the top that it undermines your point.

I would have more gone "Qiao Zhou can't make a prediction with Liu Shan as Emperor till after he becomes Emperor" (partly I have also seen First/Former interchanged in the past) but agreed, it has to be after Liu Bei dies

I know what you said and you continued sniping at me for it ever since. Next time though when quoting, put it in quote format or italics so it easier at a quick glance to see when the quote ends

and I explained why I was entitled not to do it the way you wished. You just don't like it

Someone informed Liu Bei. We are not given any reasoning whatsoever.

Counter this. How is: Han will fall, Liu Bei wins but is poo with zero reasoning and explanation is not an insult to Han Dynasty and Liu Bei.


True. Note however the many people who attacked Zhang Yu... the Yi gentry... wait nope. Scholars... nope. Zhuge Liang... nope he protested the execution. Chen Shou... wait no, he made clear it was grudge and that he was seen to have foreseen Liu Bei's death. The commentators of the sgz... nope. Western historians... nope. The only person attacking Zhang Yu as insulting or illogical is a guy thousands of years later who is a bit annoyed that Zhang Yu said something not in Liu Bei's favour

When did Zhang Yu say "Liu Bei sucks", he just said it would fall? Just like Qiao Zhou did but with Zhou attacking the very legitimacy of the dynasty.

And so Liu Bei, a self proclaimed Han loyalist who was on a winning streak should according to you, accept that " Looking at stars is a good enough reasoning for why a 400 year old Dynasty will definitely fall. And Zhang Yu believing Liu Bei's cause was going to fail even though he was Liu Bei surbodinate" is reasonable.

Me and you can afford to do so. Back then the Han existed for 400 years and Xian Di was restricted. With such tensions in mind, Zhang Yu claims would not sit well with Liu Bei regime which was based on Han loyalists.

With zero reasoning its not logical unlike Qiao Zhou. How is it not nonsensical? We also do not know if any Han loyalist knew of Zhang Yu prophecy. But out of those that knew, at least one found it sensitive enough to inform Liu Bei.


To be happy about it? No Liu Bei is entitled to be annoyed at that (not to hold a grudge over the beard thing and use that grudge to execute someone) but he should deal with it as others did when such things. Or depending if you believe one annotation, what Liu Bei did with one that warned him of disaster. Which wasn't to kill them. I'm ok with Zhang Yu (or Qiao Zhou) feeling something bad would happen, nobody has accused him of false prophecy or lies, I also don't believe one should have to think everything is going to be alright just becuase you serve in the court.

Others had predicted the fall of the Han before and since.

We have no reason to assume the person who told was a Han loyalist. Again, Han the 2000 year later guy is the only one to see it as illogical and nonsensical.

Zhuge probably felt that Liu Bei was too harsh to execute someone for bad advice, because advice being wrong do frequently happen.


Agreed. Also Zhuge Liang didn't seem 100% convinced by the camapign on Hanzhong himself so such a reason might not have been a good one for him

I was giving the full explanation of how it all went down.

Than I literally countered that Kong Rong official charges were slander to Sun Quan envoy, with source XueSanGuo.


I'm going to use italics for you, underlined for me Hold up. The official reason for both is: Liu Bei killed Zhang Yu because Zhang Yu claimed that the reign of the Liu( Han Dynasty) would be over aka treason while Cao Cao killed Kong Rong because Róng met Sūn Quán’s envoy, said mocking and slanderous words [about Tàizǔ], and met with execution. How is the latter better than the former?

If your asking which offical excuse was the bigger lie, the Kong Rong one by a mile, it is a pretty bad constructed lie. If your asking which is the wronger execution? Zhang Yu. Zhang Yu was not the only soothsayer in Yi to predict Shu would fall, just the only one executed, the sgz (and professor Rafe) has it down at least partly for the grudge. Possibly Liu Bei's response to Zhuge Liang's protests not helping Liu Bei's reputation.


Who else said the Han Dynasty would end. Thats LITERALLY TREASON in the imperial eras of China. If Zhang Yu said that privately and no higher up found out, thats understandable. But point is Liu Bei found out. A Han Loyalist. Did Zhang Yu insults play a role? Yes. But the Main reason was definitely comitting treason. Its like Kong Rong. Him being an ass to Cao Cao was why he eventually die. But the Main reason was slandering Cao Cao in front of an envoy.


So your talking about Kong Rong and the envoy as why Cao Cao is justified to kill Kong Rong (we both agree Cao Cao had reasons to do so, it's more the exact reasoning we disagreed with)

Qiao Zhou for one. It was not the main reason Liu Bei gave to Zhuge Liang and it is not the main reason that seems accepted by others like Chen Shou. On the charges against Kong Rong, one is clear slander (raised army to overthrow Han) and the others as Professor Rafe notes
This attack by Chi Lü, referring to actions and associations of Kong Rong from ten years and more earlier, scraped the barrel to find causes for accusation, then categorised them overall as a pattern of treason.


You then accept it was slander
Source? Liu Bei called Zhang Yu a pretentious weed because Zhang Yu said that the Lius will not last long. Yes, Kong Rong is clear slander, and so was Zhang Yu. Them insulting their lords however did play a role in their deaths. Like I said if Liu Bei was executed ONLY because he was salty, Zhang Yu would have immediately died.


Which is what I meant by high autonomy. Liu Bei was always in a position to kill gentry like Cao Cao and Sun Quan after Sun Ce death.

Which I countered with Liu Bei still had high autonomy and two still isnt a habit.


Only in Xu when he governed. I haven't seen anything that any warlord gave him unusual autonomy to start executing local gentry. Sun Ce had a lot of freedom in Wu as Yuan Shu couldn't really touch him without launching a full on invasion

Liu Bei already charged with bad advice but Zhuge Liang felt its not good enough or inappropriate whichever. Then after this, Liu Bei would be loss for words because saying " this dude offended me and he also had unreasonable stuff" would come off as either insecure or complicate thing further. Its better for him to just use it as an excuse to call Zhang a pretentious weed to get Zhuge one of his higher civil gentry to shut up.


but if executing Zhang Yu for his comments was as clear cut a "fair play" as you keep making out, Liu Bei has nothing to fear. Just say he made a prophecy, I'm killing him rather then result to what was a personal insult would be so much better.

Yes they were happy and celebrating, his work pre invasion was clearly a huge success and yes, not forcing a siege of the capital any longer would have been popular. I bet the wine and gifts didn't hurt either :wink: Yes people getting jobs they felt they were denied, I can see why they would like that and it was a great move by Liu Bei. I do like the Zhen Shi Fu Gan annotation

I see nothing of "Liu Bei taking Liu Zhang's generals surrenders is kindness". I haven't disputed Liu Bei treated the gentry with kindness
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved